Does The Universe Require a Creator?

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Because it's part of the universe, see previous post.

I don't need to see the previous post; this is not a good argument that time exist in only our universe.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Again, statements like this just don't make sense, asking 'when' when there is no time is incoherent. Nothing can happen when there is no time because that would mean a change, but change requires time. It almost forces you to see that it all has to start simultaneously.

This does not have to be the case, you should re-read the last few posted responses I have made, the idea that all of spacetime started with the Big Bang has been addressed. I have given a good example on why this is falsifiable, based on things we know to be factual, that this would otherwise contradict.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You argued shadows don't exist for the same reason coldness does not exist these are your words.
I won't Quote the entire thing to save space, but what you're saying here is not true.

What causes cold? I'm beginning to think you don't know what heat is. If there's something that, in abundance we give a name to it, and if there's a dearth of this thing, we have another name for it, that doesn't mean the lack of that thing is a thing, we just have a name for that circumstance. Heat is the kinetic energy of a bunch of particles.

You claim that I am confused, I respectfully decline this statement, in return propose the same for you.

I can demonstrate My point with a question.
How can something that does not exist, have a physical effect on the material world.
Absence of heat will allow things to Freeze, the Presence of Heat will allow frozen things to thaw.
This is just one example; they have a Physical effect on a material world.

If you can answer this, then I will accept your counter to my previous arguments.

Again, when we speak of Heat, or Cold, there is the physical aspect of each and then there is the experience of each.
Things that have physical effect, on a physical world must be physical themselves, physical things exsist period!

The experience of the feeling of Hot or Cold, is what is subjective and is not Objective Reality.

In other words, my friend, Heat and Cold are both an Objective part of Reality, they are not subjective, they do not require Conscious/Awareness to be actual,
water will freeze in the absence of heat, regardless.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

First off, there's a lot of talk about the singularity at the beginning of the big bang, that singularity is in the maths, it's unknown but doubtful if there's actually one back then or in back holes, we just don't know because the maths break down.

This much, is coherent and I can agree with for the most part and, that is we don't know.

I don't think anyone has any idea what an actual physical singularity would be or mean.

1. PHYSICS
   MATHEMATICS
   a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

 

[mechtheist]

I addressed this in a previous message, and I am not convinced this is the case.

Well, you should argue with GR because that's what it says.

You argued shadows don't exist for the same reason coldness does not exist these are your words.
I won't Quote the entire thing to save space, but what you're saying here is not true.

You claim that I am confused, I respectfully decline this statement, in return propose the same for you.

I can demonstrate My point with a question.
How can something that does not exist, have a physical effect on the material world.
Absence of heat will allow things to Freeze, the Presence of Heat will allow frozen things to thaw.
This is just one example; they have a Physical effect on a material world.

If you can answer this, then I will accept your counter to my previous arguments.

Again, when we speak of Heat, or Cold, there is the physical aspect of each and then there is the experience of each.
Things that have physical effect, on a physical world must be physical themselves, physical things exsist period!

The experience of the feeling of Hot or Cold, is what is subjective and is not Objective Reality.

In other words, my friend, Heat and Cold are both an Objective part of Reality, they are not subjective, they do not require Conscious/Awareness to be actual,
water will freeze in the absence of heat, regardless.

Like I said, you're confused, so confused you don't understand I explained all of this showing what you're trying to claim is nonsense. It really isn't worth my time to talk more, you don't seem to have the capacity to grasp very simple concepts. Take 'absence of heat will allow things to freeze', that isn't really right, if these things are below the freezing point, they will be frozen [I don't want to get into the exceptions like supercooling, it's not relevant]. There is no absence of heat, they're still chock full of heat. You do realize that the steel you're surrounded by is frozen. right? As is the white hot element in any incandescent light bulb? They're all frozen. I can't answer your question because it's simply incoherent, as I already made clear and just did again. Only something at absolute zero has an 'absence of heat'. I think you don't understand the difference between temperature and heat, see previous post, even though I explained how it's a category error to use heat and cold together as if they're comparable you did it again here. You seem able to string together words in a way that sounds like you must be intelligent but you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb. I can't waste any more time on this, it's futile, you can't or won't understand so why bother?

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I can't answer your question because it's simply incoherent, as I already made clear and just did again. You seem able to string together words in a way that sounds like you must be intelligent but you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb. I can't waste any more time on this, it's futile, you can't or won't understand so why bother?

Haha ad hominem won't do, you wont answer the question because it's impossible, to answer with out proving your counter argument wrong, you would have to accept that. Instead you claim im confused and use insults, thats okay have a nice day haha
These things have a physical effect on a material world, so yes, they exist end of story.

 

[mechtheist]

You don't even understand what an hominem is, it's not pointing out your inability to understand and saying that makes you seem dumb. If I say you're an idiot and that means you're wrong, that's an ad hominem, if explain how you're wrong and say you're an idiot for not understanding that, you're an idiot to think that's an ad hominem. The fact that you refuse to even address the very profound ignorance on display by thinking cold and heat are comparable means you're obstinately ignorant and very likely behaving dishonestly. So, I should listen to myself tell me it's not worth the effort to continue discourse.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

I will let you have your own beliefs you definitely did insult me that’s fine I don’t care.

But the fact still remains you are wrong heat and cold do exist!

And when you were presented with a question you don’t address the question. Instead you throw in a bunch of word salad then try to insult me on a personal level.

Unfortunately this conversation has ended In a very unnecessary way.

SMH I shall say no more I’ve given you plenty of reasons why things you say or not consistent with your own arguments by giving you examples of actual things that contradict those we know to be factual And it seems to be a pattern, that when you are met with these counter arguments, you evade answering them.

And just claimed the other person is confused and that what they say isn’t coherent simply because you don’t understand.

I don’t have time for a dumpster fires this will be my last post here for this topic.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You don't even understand what an hominem is

you don't seem to have the capacity to grasp very simple concepts.

you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb.

If this was an effort to attack the subject or the position I was maintaining rather than me, this was poorly done.

 

[mechtheist]

Oh FFS, I told you you don't know what an ad hominem is, insulting someone is NOT an ad hominem. Why not look the fucking term up and see what it means instead of repeating your asinine claim? You also keep repeating that I didn't answer your question but I did, numerous times, by telling you it CAN'T ne answered! How many oranges do I have to add to 2 to get a number greater than New York City? I'm going to keep badgering you until you answer that question. I will ignore you if you try to tell me that the question makes no sense, it does to me. If you keep insisting on not answering it and explain why it isn't answerable, I will ignore that and insist it is answerable because I say it is. What would you think of someone who did that? Or insisted oranges and New York City could be added or compared to an integer? You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem.

If this was an effort to attack the subject or the position I was maintaining rather than me, this was poorly done.

That looks like you finally got around to looking ad hominem up but you're still confused, I think that must be a permanent state for you. It's not an ad hominem if the attack on the person isn't an attempt to claim you're right because that person is whatever the insult was, stupid, immoral, an asshole, etc. What I did was explain, over and over again, why you're wrong, when you just keep saying the same BS over and over again, that's what motivated the insults. The argument was over many posts ago, you're just too obstinately ignorant and dim to understand that.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/

adjective

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks"

What do you think personal insults are? You have not addressed any argument I’ve made with a counter you have simply just said I am incorrect because you think I am confused or that what I’m saying is incoherent or that I am not capable of understanding simple concepts even calling me dumb hahah….none of this argues anything at all.


The question can be answered and the answer is things that don’t exist cannot have a physical impact on a material world because they don’t exist they cannot cause , They cannot effect and they cannot affect.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

How many oranges do I have to add to 2 to get a number greater than New York City? I'm going to keep badgering you until you answer that question. I will ignore you if you try to tell me that the question makes no sense, it does to me. If you keep insisting on not answering it and explain why it isn't answerable, I will ignore that and insist it is answerable because I say it is. What would you think of someone who did that? Or insisted oranges and New York City could be added or compared to an integer? You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem

Word salad, None of this is consistent none of this is the least bit a valid argument none of this is “coherent”

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem

Very Well put together I applaud you
“clapping softly” I’m still waiting on an argument though.

 

[A Higher Enlightenment]

Oh FFS, I told you you don't know what an ad hominem is, insulting someone is NOT an ad hominem. Why not look the fucking term up and see what it means instead of repeating your asinine claim? You also keep repeating that I didn't answer your question but I did, numerous times, by telling you it CAN'T ne answered! How many oranges do I have to add to 2 to get a number greater than New York City? I'm going to keep badgering you until you answer that question. I will ignore you if you try to tell me that the question makes no sense, it does to me. If you keep insisting on not answering it and explain why it isn't answerable, I will ignore that and insist it is answerable because I say it is. What would you think of someone who did that? Or insisted oranges and New York City could be added or compared to an integer? You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem.

That looks like you finally got around to looking ad hominem up but you're still confused, I think that must be a permanent state for you. It's not an ad hominem if the attack on the person isn't an attempt to claim you're right because that person is whatever the insult was, stupid, immoral, an asshole, etc. What I did was explain, over and over again, why you're wrong, when you just keep saying the same BS over and over again, that's what motivated the insults. The argument was over many posts ago, you're just too obstinately ignorant and dim to understand that.

You have not made a single valid argument. You simply just say something is without giving any argument behind it you claim shadows don’t exist for the same reason coldness don’t exist and I have given you several reasons why your claim is demonstrably false. And when I address what you said with good Arguments that demonstrate why they are false you don’t acknowledge it but rather resort to insults. The only thing that I’ve gotten out of anything you’ve wrote is that you claim I am wrong because I am somehow confused and because I am somehow confused and you believe yourself to not be confused on the subject that you are somehow more valid that your argument the one you have yet to provide, is somehow valid.

Telling me that shadows don’t exist and then I am confused is not an argument it’s not a valid position you can maintain.

 

[mechtheist]

I'm pretty sure we're engaged in an argument, if you accuse someone of an ad hominem, it means an 'argument ad hominem', a type of logic fallacy, as in it's part of the argument, a tactic used with the aim of convincing others of the truth or validity of your argument. Your definition recognizes this: "(of an argument or reaction" I don't know what it means by 'reaction', try looking through a bunch of other defs and you will see what I mean. None of the insults here were meant to convince you or anyone else of the validity of my argument. Accusing someone of an ad hominem justified by something said during an argument but not part of that argument means you're, at best, being misleading. Unfortunately, lots of people don't understand what it really means and use the term like you do, as nothing more than 'insult' so the term is degrading and we could lose it as a useful term, but it ain't there yet! Especially not in an environment like here, a forum where arguments are the norm and most folks are well enough informed to know the distinction, so why not just say I insulted you instead of maligning my arguments with bogus accusations of ad hominem attacks?

I explained what heat was, and temperature, and how cold is about temperature which is NOT the same as heat, it's a very loosely defined word about the sensation of being in a place where the temperature is too low for comfort, something along those lines, It is evident, it is obvious, it's not at all hard to grasp that you can't compare the terms or use them as if they're somehow of the same category. You refuse to accept this but have done nothing but keep telling me I'm wrong and engage in repeat spewing of the same nonsense that makes this category error, You have not once tried to explain how I'm wrong, You keep saying BS like "things that don’t exist cannot have a physical impact on a material world". Why is it nonsense? Because you can't explain how something that is cold is nothing more than the case that the molecules it's made of are moving slower than when it is 'hot'. Just like you can't explain how something can be 'dark' but not because there's less light reflecting off it, or it's emitting less light than some other thing that has more, or compared to itself when it reflected or emitted more light. I asked this many posts ago and you keep refusing to answer even though pretty much every post of mine made that question obviously still needing an answer. And you refuse to address the really glaring category error. Plus, I DID NOT just say shadows don't exist, just like I didn't just say cold doesn't exist, I repeatedly explained why that's true. You're just making yourself look more and more ignorant, stupid, and dishonest. You're obstinately ignorant and obstinately moronic, and it doesn't look like you'll stop because even when you did actually check out my claim of not ad homineming you, you managed to misconstrue the definition so you could claim I was wrong so I'm betting you'll never change your mind and join the real world.

 

[We are Borg]

Energy Cannot Exist Without Space and Time.
B.) If Energy cannot Exist outside of space and time, but Space and Time came into existence though the Big Bang, this automatically applies to Energy too.
As energy is dependent on the existence of Space and time.

The singularity was energy it created space time you have it reversed.

We now know think energy cant be created but thats now maybe those theories will be adjusted when we grow on the Kardashev scale.

 

[*SD*]

This thread is going exactly as predicted.

 

[mechtheist]

This thread is going exactly as predicted.

Is A Dimmer Enlightenment always like this? I honestly can't fathom how he thinks. It's like dealing with a child with a vocabulary way too large for its age but then it doesn't actually know what most of the words mean.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I will let you have your own beliefs you definitely did insult me that’s fine I don’t care.

Ad hominem is not a synonym for insult.

I don’t have time for a dumpster fires this will be my last post here for this topic.

 

[Mythtaken]

1.) Energy, Space and Time Exist.

This is true, in our universe.

2.) Energy Cannot Exist Without Space and Time.
B.) If Energy cannot Exist outside of space and time, but Space and Time came into existence though the Big Bang, this automatically applies to Energy too.
As energy is dependent on the existence of Space and time.

Stephen Hawking would disagree. He theorized that if we could go back far enough we would find a place where there was space, but no time or energy. Inside that space was what he referred to as Nothing. Not the absence of anything, but rather undefined quantum fluctuations that could spontaneously create pairs of virtual particles from itself. Most of those virtual particles collided and annihilated themselves. Rarely, however, two particles would become so separated they became real, energetic particles. Presumably, it was this random generation of energy from nothing that eventually built into the big bang.

This fits with what I was saying earlier about the singularity or whatever it was being a state of "potential" rather than objectively real.

3.) Energy cannot be created.
A.) It is said our Universe as well as all of space and time, had a beginning, "The Big Bang"
However, If Energy Cannot be created then it does not have a beginning, and therefore Connot be a result of the Big Bang.

Energy cannot be created in our universe, as far as we know. But for outside the existing universe, see above. There is at least one theory that claims otherwise.

4.) If Energy was not a result of the Big Bang but is dependent on the existence of Space and Time.
This means Space and time are also not a result of the Big Bang.

Again, this is a supposition. We don't have any proof of this.

So, either Conservation of Energy is wrong, or our understanding of Space and Time is far from accurate.

As I've said before, Conservation of Energy, like all natural laws, only exists within the reference frame of our universe. These "laws" do not control the universe, merely describe what we have observed and proven to be true. Indeed, there are some physicists who question whether these laws even apply across the entire universe. Conservation of Energy can be violated by Relativity at the cosmological scale.

I think our understanding of spacetime is accurate, as far as we currently understand it. Most physicists would also agree that picture is not complete. There is much left to discover.